at bottom :-
On 17/05/2017, Philip Hands wrote:
> Henrique de Moraes Holschuh writes:
>
>> Actually, we might want to issue an statement to _Debian_ users
>> reminding them the value and necessity of keeping their Debian systems
>> up-to-date. Maybe point to our automated solutions that remi
Dear all,
FWIW I've CC'ed Praveen, he actually did a biggish print-run around
2011-12 if memory serves right. He got about 150-200 t-shirts either
at Tirrupur, Tamil Nadu
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiruppur#Economy or Bangalore. If memory
serves right, he lost about 30% of the money out of the
On Tue, 2017-05-16 at 21:26 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> That won't help if you do _not_ keep updating the system daily,
> though. Which is what this is about.
It isn't what I was taling about.
Microsoft users or indeed Android users, iOS users and I presume OSX
users get security
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 8:26 AM, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> Or did you mean install by default the stuff that nags about available
> security updates?
I expect he is talking about the unattended-upgrades package, or the
PackageKit stuff that installs updates on shutdown.
--
bye,
pabs
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 6:34 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> I wonder what you call "everything". In the majority of the servers on
> which I have installed Debian, no non-free firmware were required.
That would be surprising to me, I imagine every one of those servers
was running non-free pre-instal
On Wed, 17 May 2017, Russell Stuart wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-05-16 at 10:31 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > Actually, we might want to issue an statement to _Debian_ users
> > reminding them the value and necessity of keeping their Debian
> > systems up-to-date. Maybe point to our autom
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 12:18 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> If we made such a decision, I'd be very supportive of it. We could make
> it in a "soft" way, ie tell that we accept some kind of (re-occurring?)
> sponsorship, and providing a range of acceptable payment. We could make
> such payment not c
On Tue, 2017-05-16 at 10:31 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> Actually, we might want to issue an statement to _Debian_ users
> reminding them the value and necessity of keeping their Debian
> systems up-to-date. Maybe point to our automated solutions that
> remind and/or apply security
On 05/04/2017 01:56 AM, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 12:17 AM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>
>> No, they should not, otherwise this certification becomes meaningless.
>
> I see these certifications primarily as a service to Debian users and
> not as endorsements of vendors, but as statement
On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 11:24:16AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> I agree with your conclusion that we shouldn't make a public statement
> trying to capitalise on this, but:
> Russ Allbery writes ("Re: should debian comment about the recent 'ransomware'
> malware."):
> > This is not a case where Mic
Ian Jackson writes:
> If these systems were running Debian, big organisations like the British
> government could hire people to provide security support for their
> users, even for versions which we no longer support. When the obsolete
> operating system is Windows, they can only hire Microsoft
Replying in-line :-
On 16/05/2017, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
>
> Actually, we might want to issue an statement to _Debian_ users
> reminding them the value and necessity of keeping their Debian systems
> up-to-date. Maybe point to our automated solutions that remind and/or
> apply s
On 05/06/2017 03:54 AM, Luca Filipozzi wrote:
> On Fri, May 05, 2017 at 10:40:10PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>> On Fri, 2017-05-05 at 16:54 +0200, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>>> On 05/02/2017 02:35 AM, Paul Wise wrote:
With my DSA hat on, we don't like being guinea pigs for development
board
On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 10:31:34AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> It is probably worth it to also remind users that they must also keep
> track of firmware updates on Intel and AMD systems for platform-level
> fixes (Intel ME, Ryzen and Kabilake microcode, usual BIOS/UEFI platform
> bu
On Tue, 16 May 2017, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> If we were to do so, it should be something that helps victims, or
> those in danger of becoming victims, of this non-verbal attack. Maybe
> something along the lines of keeping one's systems up to date with
> security updates, and having good, secure ba
Paul Wise writes ("Re: Debian contributor Register of Interests"):
> Perhaps what we need is a a culture of awareness of our own personal
> potential conflicts of interest and guidelines for disclosure (where
> relevant) and examples of conduct that is not appropriate.
Yes.
> Personally, I disclo
Tollef Fog Heen writes ("Re: Debian contributor Register of Interests"):
Ian Jackson :
> > From Debian's point of view: I think that anyone who takes prolonged
> > employment with an organisation which takes an active interest in
> > their Debian work, to the extent of taking an interest in what t
I agree with your conclusion that we shouldn't make a public statement
trying to capitalise on this, but:
Russ Allbery writes ("Re: should debian comment about the recent 'ransomware'
malware."):
> This is not a case where Microsoft did something clearly wrong, or even
> differently than we would
On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 2:09 PM, Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote:
> I am not sure if this got a page added.
I didn't add one, so I think yours is the first.
> [1] https://wiki.debian.org/InstallingDebianOn/Certification
I've renamed the page into the Hardware/ namespace and made minor fixes:
https://w
On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 03:59:18AM +0530, shirish शिरीष wrote:
> while it was primarily targeted towards Windows machines, maybe we
> could tailor a response which shows how Debian is more secure and
> possibilities of such infections are low/non-existent .
Others have commented (correctly, I thin
20 matches
Mail list logo
